Category:

A Modest Proposal by Phil Runyon

3/15/2018

A Modest Proposal

Many of you have already taken the suggestion to convey your assets to revocable trusts to help your family avoid the winter (spring, summer and fall) of discontent that is probate administration. Often the plan is to hold the nest egg in trust until you’ve shoveled your last driveway, and then to distribute it in equal shares among the kids once they’ve reached responsible ages.

The problem with this plan can be that age alone doesn’t guaranty smooth sailing for anyone. For example, what if you’ve settled on a final payout at 30, but by then a divorce or a lawsuit or bankruptcy has made it treacherous for your offspring to receive - and retain - even a morsel of the egg? Yet the trust says 30, so the estranged spouse or the plaintiff or the bankruptcy creditors want their shares. Or what if 30 just turns out to be way too early - or unnecessarily late - for your folks, no matter how you assessed the situation way back when they were 10 and 12?

Let's also say you want the trust to provide for the children's or grandchildren's tuition somewhere really expensive - that doesn't narrow it down much these days - but you don't want the trust assets to count against them in the financial aid decisions. Or perhaps one of those youngsters ends up spending every nickel he touches on harmful substances or needs disability benefits at some point - and you don't want a trust share to finance their problems or disqualify them from help they may be able to qualify for otherwise.

How about one more scenario: maybe one of the kids or grandkids doesn't really need as much as another, because his spouse has a lucrative career or inherited a lot herself - or maybe needs more, because she's committed to a wonderful non-profit that does important work but can't pay a living wage.

So, what kind of magic tweak might actually deal with nearly all these concerns? Well, suppose you substituted the word "may" for "shall" in the trust provision about distributions, and suppose you took out all the ages for mandatory equal distributions and left it totally up to a trusted person - you know, a trustee - to decide when and for what purposes distributions could be made once you're gone. Then, instead of inserting any specifics into the trust agreement itself - specifics that might have to be disclosed to someone snooping into a beneficiary's right to a quantifiable share of the assets - suppose you left some informal guidelines for the trustee about how and under what circumstances the trust funds might be used. And because those guidelines weren't included in the official document and weren't legally enforceable anyhow, they wouldn't have to be disclosed to anyone. No one's share would really be a share at all, so no third parties could get their claws into anything definite or put a meaningful value on it.

Needless to say, this approach isn't for everyone. Some people don't want others - even trusted others - making all those fundamental decisions. Some people don't even have others they trust that much. And some people just figure that their kids need to leave the nest and fend for themselves at some point - say, at 30 - no matter what happens next. So it's just a modest proposal for your consideration.

Protecting Your Most Precious Assets by Phil Runyon

10/23/2015

Protecting Your Most Precious Assets

t's always important to get your affairs in order - just in case things happen unexpectedly - but there's one organizing job you really can't put off: your own kids!

The first thing to decide on would be who the kids would actually live with - and they'll need someone to provide a home base at least until they're legal adults at 18. That should be spelled out in a will, or you'll be leaving it to the rest of the family to sort it out for themselves, with results that could be totally different than you'd have wanted, not to mention perhaps contrary to the kids' best interests.

I mean, you certainly love your bachelor brother in Manhattan, or your sister in Nebraska who's already got a brood to keep her busy, but are they ready, willing and able to alter their lifestyles to do their best for your gang? And is either of those locales where you'd want the kids to grow up, no matter how well they might be cared for there? Or let's say you pick your thoughtful and caring parents, whom the kids love but who may not be able to hang in there as long as the kids might need them. An alternate choice would certainly be wise under those circumstances. Keep in mind, too, that your picks don't have to be family members at all, if you've got friends close by whom the kids think of as aunts and uncles and whose children are your own kids' best buds. But you've got to name those folks in your wills for sure, because most courts aren't going to choose friends over family otherwise.

Alright, let's assume you're over that first hurdle of who it's going to be, and you've gotten their OK to stand in for you should the need arise - you need to do that, too, of course. Now you might want to provide them with your parenting plan, preferably in writing, without sounding like you're a know-it-all or don't really trust the folks you're counting on. I've seen this done both well and very badly, but the best statements usually make your points by describing a typical day or week in the life of your present family. So, for instance, do the kids have chores and help out a lot; are they pretty conscientious about their homework or do you need to make sure the dog hasn't eat it; how do you feel about technology and all those social media distractions; and do you monitor the kids' every coming and going or generally trust them to make the right choices? You get the picture, and you'll want your stand-ins to get it, too, even if they decide to alter the rules as they see fit. After all, you do trust them, right, or you'd make another choice? Then, like everything else in life that morphs over time, you can adjust your thoughts in a new version as the kids get older, prove their good judgment and responsibility - we all hope - and make the honor roll or spend their afternoons in makeup study hall. Don't fret, I'm sure your exceptional parenting will shine through.

Posted 10/23/2015 Estate Planning

Sometimes More Information is Better by Phil Runyon

8/27/2015

Sometimes More Information is Better

Here are a few words on a subject that can be totally unenjoyable, even divisive, in many families, at a time when they really need to pull together. I'm talking about how to divide up the lifetime of family mementos, treasured artifacts, valuable antiques, special rings, watches and silverware, and the other personal belongings left behind by one of our departed loved ones. It can go easily and smoothly, or it can read like a Gothic novel, with ugly scars that re-open periodically for generations. My family is still grumbling about who got a piano 40 years ago.

Without question, the best way for that process to go is to have the one who's no longer with us make the decisions about the critical items. This can be done by means of specific bequests in a will or by binding directions to the trustee of a trust, or it can consist of informal written guidelines to the executor or trustee about how the decedent hopes the distribution process will go. It's often helpful, too, for those decisions to be accompanied by words of explanation about why a particular designation was made. That can not only be very meaningful to the recipient, but also help dispel recriminations about whether the old guy really knew what he was doing at that point.

Even if there are only a few significant pieces to deal with, there are often many more that will have to be allocated among the family recipients. The recently departed can also help with that process, too, by documented conversations held beforehand, if there's time, or by indicating how the division of the remaining items should go. Some parents and grandparents come right out and ask their offspring to choose what they hope to receive, even putting colored dots or names on the backs or bottoms of the antique lamps and tables. Then they leave a written request that their executor or trustee honor those selections, if possible, or come up with a fair way to parcel out the treasures that everyone may want.

Sometimes it's helpful for decedents to leave instructions about how they want the decision-making process to be structured - that can take the pressure off the harried executor or trustee. Maybe they want the family members to draw lots about who goes first in making choices; or maybe they want it to go down the line from oldest to youngest. I heard someone suggest that the person who goes first in the first round (1,2,3,4,5) should go last in the second round, (2,3,4,5,1), and so on.

No matter how the selection process is conducted, though, it's very helpful for a decedent to let the executor or trustee know whether the value of items is to be factored in, or whether that's not an element to be considered. If values are important, then the allocation process needs to take that into account, with disparities in value perhaps to be made up in the division of other estate or trust assets. If values aren't significant, then family members should know that at the outset, as that may have a great deal to do with how they make their choices, or how the fiduciary allocates items among them. One thing is clear on this score: If no preference is indicated, the executor or trustee will be required to use the items' values (usually determined by a qualified appraisal) as the determining factor and to make sure each beneficiary receives items totaling approximately equal value.

For all these reasons, I think you can see how the choice of an executor or trustee can be critical. If it's going to be a family member - and particularly if the fiduciary is also one of the beneficiaries - and even more so if there are items of significant value coupled with beneficiaries who may have volatility issues, shall we say - then that person needs not only to have the wisdom of Solomon, but also to be someone the rest of the family trusts for fairness, reasonableness and diplomacy worthy of Middle East peace negotiations. If no one in the family fills that bill, then it may be possible to turn to a close family friend - with full disclosure about the perils that lie ahead - or just to designate a professional adviser whose business it is to be paid for assuming the substantial risks involved.

The bottom line is that you can't be too deliberate or clear about your wishes in these situations. It's one thing for family members to be disappointed that they didn't receive what they'd hoped for, but if they have your reasons to fall back on, that may help considerably. It may also help for you to tell them it's not the monetary value that counts to you - because you hope none of your treasures will be sold anyhow - but that what's important is for everyone to receive the small or large thingy that's the most meaningful to them - or to you. I got my grandfather's roll-top desk, and I think about him every time I sit down there. He died 50 years ago, so I'd say that legacy has worked out pretty well for both of us.

Posted 08/27/2015 Estate Planning

Be Charitable with IRAs by Phil Runyon

7/24/2015

Be Charitable with IRAs

I want to talk about IRAs and charities in the same breath here, and I want to acknowledge my good friends at the New Hampshire Charitable Foundation for their helpful ideas on this unlikely pairing. I'll start with the caveat that in order for this to have interest for you, you need to have an IRA and to be somewhat charitably inclined.

If you're still with me, it probably won't come as a surprise that many people's largest financial asset these days may be their IRA. They've been having a portion of their paychecks tossed in there for years and it's built up tax-free to quite a nice nest egg. If they name their spouse or children as the beneficiaries, though, all that deferred income tax will start coming home to roost, and while the blow may be softened by a payout over a number of years, those taxes are going to get paid eventually. That is, unless at least some of the account is payable to your favorite charitable organization(s), in which case the tax liability on that portion disappears and the tax-exempt charity gets 100% of your generosity.

So. here's a strategy that could work for you: you might designate one or more charitable beneficiaries of at least a percentage of your IRA, and then use other assets for helping out the familial objects of your affection. For example, if you have non-IRA securities, or the family homestead, or valuable personal property, those assets would all be revalued at death to reflect their current worth (it's called a "stepped-up" basis), and your beneficiaries then could liquidate them without payment of ordinary income or capital gains tax.

If an outright distribution of hard-earned IRA funds to charity is going down hard, then you might consider using some of the IRA to fund a testamentary gift annuity. That's where the funds go to the charity at your death - again tax-free - but the charity pays your spouse or children a regular income from the funds for the rest of the beneficiary's life. Only when the designated beneficiary is gone will the remaining funds actually belong to the organization. In fact, this may be the real win-winner of alternatives, because not only are all those pent-up income taxes avoided on the charitable portion of the IRA, but your family continues to benefit from them at a pretty favorable rate of return.

Finally, I want to shift gears slightly and correct a misconception that's been floating out there for sometime about so-called donor-advised funds at the NHCF. That's where you set up an account with them, fund it with the assets you're willing to devote to charitable contributions, and then decide, usually on an annual basis, how to make distributions to the organizations you want to benefit. For years it's been the common understanding that those DAF accounts were essentially perpetual. That doesn't have to be the case, though, and if your favorite non-profit has a pressing need for all your funds, you can retain the right to have the whole account paid out immediately. That just gives you one more flexible option, while still achieving a current income tax deduction when the DAF is created.

I don't plan to go on here about how important being charitable is, although we here in New Hampshire seem to be more frugal, shall we say, than our friends living nearly anywhere else. Just think about all the schools we went to that got us where we are, all the service organizations that have helped us out over the years, and all the non-profits - more like no-profits - that have made life here so enjoyable. It wouldn't hurt to recognize them just a little in the end - and paying it forward is a valuable example for our families, as well.

Posted 07/24/2015 - estate planning

Asset Beneficiaries are Important by Phil Runyon

5/22/2015

Asset Beneficiaries are important

As we all know (some more traumatically than others), the divorce bug has attacked nearly every family at some point. And when it hits, the parties are often so unsettled that making sure all their bases are covered can be a real challenge. One thing that's often overlooked is a party's will. If it's a New Hampshire will, the parties are covered by a statute that automatically revokes any bequest to the former spouse. If the parties have put all their assets into a joint revocable trust, however - maybe to avoid probate or to provide for young children - there's no automatic revocation, and the parties really need to assign those assets to new separate trusts to avoid the surviving [former] spouse from continuing to benefit.

Even if they're clear-headed enough to think of all that, though, they're not finished. They also need to review their bank and investment accounts, insurance policies, annuities and the like that are jointly-owned or have designated beneficiaries. The proceeds of those assets are unaffected by the divorce decree, and unless the ownership and/or beneficiary arrangements are carefully changed directly with the bank, insurance company or other institution, the former spouse is going to get a windfall upon the first party's death - maybe at the expense of the parties' children or the deceased party's eventual new spouse.

While we're talking beneficiaries, permit me to mention one other potential snag that has nothing to do with divorces. Many people who've hand-crafted a trust to protect their young children or grandchildren still have them named as the beneficiaries of the kinds of assets mentioned in the last paragraph. Or maybe it's even the grown kids who are named as the beneficiaries, but then one of them predeceases the account or policyholder (that's you), and your young grandchildren step into their parents' shoes. In either of those scenarios, if the asset ends up passing to young children or grandchildren, they're going to receive the big payoff at age 18 - the legal age of majority (for all purposes but drinking!) - no matter how carefully your trust provides for its assets to be held until the kids are 21 or 25 or whatever age you think is more appropriate. That unfortunate result can be remedied easily, just by making the trust itself the beneficiary, so the assets collect in there and then are parcelled out to your off-shoots as your carefully-constructed trust provides.

Finally, let me answer a good question that many people pose while signing their new trusts: "If I'm creating a trust to hold my assets, why do I still need a will?" It's because not everyone follows through to get all their assets re-titled into the name of the trust - or made payable to the trust - so there still needs to be a vehicle for making sure those stray assets end up where they're supposed to be. And that can make a significant difference in the outcome, because if there's no will at all, and if a large asset isn't in trust name or payable to the trust - say, because it's payable to the decedent's "estate" - that asset may end up going to a relative who's entirely different than the trust beneficiaries. We're actually wrestling with that very scenario right now, as a recent NH resident/decedent set up a trust in another state with numerous charitable beneficiaries carefully provided for, but then forgot to back up the trust with a will when she arrived here. Now the considerable non-trust assets are heading off to the family members who inherit when there's no will - and who may be perfectly nice folks, of course, but who weren't the intended recipients. A simple will passing everything to the trust would have avoided that nightmarish outcome.

Post 05/22/2015 Estate Planning

Modern Families by Phil Runyon

5/22/2015

Modern Families

Let's start with the situation that sends a shiver through every parent - what to do if one of the kids is missing (heaven forbid). Well, if you've really determined that's the case - the child's not just at a friend's house without your knowledge, or didn't get off the bus because he/she got sent to detention and missed the usual ride - you should certainly start with the local police department. Then, depending on what you think may have happened, you can also contact the State Police Missing Persons Section of the Major Crimes Unit at 603-223-3856 or [email protected].

And if you take the belt and suspenders approach to things, you can also check out the FBI's Child ID app, where you can store photos and all sorts of information about your children that would be extremely helpful to the authorities in the event of trouble. Here's one of the success stories the app references: "One of the app’s questions prompted the boy’s father to remember an unusual characteristic of his boy’s front teeth. The captured data, along with the child’s digital image, was sent to FBI offices. Armed with detailed info, the FBI was able to issue an extremely detailed press release about the boy. And hours later, the child was abandoned by his captors, recognized in a busy office park by a bystander and reunited with his parents."

Let's also talk about when the kids go visit grandma and grandpa because you're off to ride motor bikes in Bermuda for a week! First of all, get your own planning in order, because those things slide all over the road when you get caught in a shower. Then, you should probably consider some arrangements for the grandfolks to be able to get medical care for the kids if one of them has a health hiccup while you're gone. And if it's during the school year, you might combine that with authorization for the folks to act in loco parentis with the administration about all sorts of educational issues - all the way from picking the kids up for those doctor visits, to discussing attendance and disciplinary issues, even giving approval for a school trip or Friday night rollerskating. Needless to say, this all becomes more and more important the longer you plan to be away from the little guys. If it's just a long weekend, you may not want to bother with anything at all, but if you're heading off to spend a year with Habitat for Humanity, it would be critical - but so would your own planning in that event.

In order to help with the arrangements, we'll be happy to send you a self-explanatory form you might consider. And one way to test whether it will achieve the desired results would be to provide it to the kids' pediatrician and principal for pre-approval. If they balk, or if they want other specific language included, it would help to know that and try to do something about it before you leave town. Bon voyage!

Posted 05/22/2015 - Misc.

More Trust News by Phil Runyon

7/24/2014

More Trust News

If you've been even an intermittent reader here, you know I've proclaimed the helpful uses of trusts on many occasions. Historically, the primary goal was to save federal estate taxes; however, the exemptions from tax are now so generous ($5,340,000 per person this year) that only the most fortunate of us - and I use the communal plural hypothetically - has any continuing concern on that front. If you're still in that boat, there are steps to take, but I won't go there in this column.

Probate avoidance is the big trust motivator these days, largely because all the New Hampshire courts are so short-handed and backed up that they don't have time for cold beverages, much less for handling probated estates in a timely or economical manner.

Still, that's not the point of this message. It's this: Many of us also need trusts to provide wisely for a loved one with special needs - and I use that phrase broadly.

We might have a child, grandchild or sibling who suffers chronically with a mental or psychological challenge that entitles them to public benefits of various kinds. If we leave assets outright to them, not only may they be incapable of protecting those resources on their own, but they may unnecessarily lose their benefit eligibility.

Likewise, we may have a family member who's struggled on, off, and on again, with alcohol or drug dependence and may not make wise choices if presented with an inheritance that has no safeguards in place. And then there's simply the one who just can't seem to hold onto a dollar no matter what, and would turn a generous bequest into a significant liability before the check had cleared.

All of these folks may be wonderful human beings, and it's because they're family that we want to do our best for them. That's where a trust can make a real difference. It can designate a capable and reliable relative (or a third-party advisor) to oversee their share of your benevolence and to use it wisely for their benefit - so it lasts as long as they need it. That is, the trustee might decide to free up funds for the reliable, late model Honda but not for the 50th anniversary, limited edition, Mustang convertible - or might decline a loan of $5,000 to our loved one's neighbor who has no ability ever to repay it - or might simply use the trust funds in a manner that won't upset the public benefit applecart for the disabled recipient.

Keep in mind, too, that these special provisions can often be included in a trust that's already being aimed at probate avoidance, so there may be multiple birds we can attend to in the same document.

Sure, our family member may initially bristle at being singled out for special treatment, but that's where either a candid sit-down with him or her can help, or a heart-felt letter of explanation left with the trustee can make the case once we're gone. Many times I've gladly taken responsibility for suggesting this careful course of action. No matter how it's orchestrated, what we need to get across is that it's because we do care that we're making these arrangements.

Posted 07/24/2014 Estate Planning

Elder Law Priorities by Phil Runyon

5/19/2014

Elder Law Priorities

Elder law is the fastest growing practice area for many lawyers, because people now entering their Medicare years are the fastest growing demographic - and they have the most money to pay lawyers (I said it, but you were thinking it). Some of this has to do with declining birth rates at the other end of the spectrum, but it also stems from dramatically longer life expectancies than just 20 or 30 years ago. If you saw "60 Minutes" recently, you know that some of the factors contributing to the longevity explosion are exercise and healthy diets (as you might have guessed), but also a little coffee and alcohol everyday (an unexpected bonus), and modest weight gain in our senior years (I think many of us are pursuing this one religiously).

The problem is that while our bodies are being tuned to run forever - with replacement parts available for what wears out - our minds are not keeping pace - and so far a brain transplant is not in the medical arsenal. That dilemma carries with it many consequences, not the least of which is that others need to have the authority to handle the legal, financial and medical affairs of those who can no longer make those decisions for themselves. The trouble is that arrangements for granting that authority need to be made while the strapping senior is still mentally vigorous, too. That means executing durable powers of attorney and health care directives before the fog of incapacity drifts in, which we all know can happen almost overnight. It happens instantly if there's an unexpected medical emergency, and who wants to worry about having their legal ducks in a row when they're preoccupied with stressful treatment decisions for their family members.

This isn't to say that nothing can be done if the moment for decision has been lost. It's just that the alternative is court-supervised guardianship, which is an expensive, time-consuming hassle to get established and then to administer year after year. Lawyers love them - they're like mini pensions - but unless you love your lawyer enough to pay to see her every year, you're not likely to be as enamored.

OK, so how do you get these magic documents for yourself or your elders? Again, lawyers are often the source if you want them done correctly and thoroughly, but they may not have to be done more than once - or at least more than once every 5 or 10 years. And if you want to save on health care directives, you can go to healthynh.com and download a perfectly good form there, along with the instructions on how to execute it properly.

I had a great friend who was sharp as a tack until he died last year just short of 100. We should all be so lucky. The irony is that medical advances are making it less likely for that to happen. So like having our knees and hips replaced, we need to take other important steps - or help our elders do so.

Joint Tenants Take Note by Phil Runyon

1/7/2014

Joint Tenants Take Note

As the heading suggests, I'm out to toss a little cold water on the common technique many of us employ to pass our worldly stuff on to our partners. We figure that if we just hold our assets in both names "as joint tenants with rights of survivorship", then the moment one of us departs, our partner in tenancy will become the sole owner of what we've left behind. And the best part is we'll have avoided the need for wills, probate and any other reason to call a lawyer for help. Not so fast. After all, lawyers write most of the laws, and self-preservation is a strong motivator.

So, sure, if one joint partner dies, then the assets held that way do miraculously end up owned by the survivor - and without need of legal help getting there. If the ownership stays that way, though, the survivor's estate is going to endure about a year of probate formalities, much to the undoubted chagrin of our offspring. That's because - as I've mentioned before - assets solely in a decedent's name at death generally need probate to get themselves into another name, whether there's a will or not. To make it even worse, let's say the survivor now also owns a condo in Ft. Myers or Phoenix, If no steps are taken, his or her estate will be probating itself both in New Hampshire and where that winter getaway is located. FYI, it recently cost $3,000 in probate fees just to get a solely-owned Florida condo into the kids' names - and all they wanted to do was sell it.

Joint ownership of assets also won't keep probate at bay if something happens to both owners at the same time. That's a pretty rare occurrence, I know, but one most of us in this area have experienced, tragically, not long ago. Under those circumstances, both estates require probate because there's no surviving owner.

What's the solution? The preferred one would be a revocable trust, with you as your own trustee, and with all your assets re-titled in that name. A couple would likely do fine with one joint trust these days. Of course, you can take that other, riskier road of keeping those assets in joint ownership until the first partner's passing, but then you've got to make sure the survivor funds the same kind of trust before the second shoe drops.

The positive spin on all this is that if you make good on your resolve to tidy up your planning, the decrease in stress may also add years to your life expectancy.

Posted 01/07/2014 Estate Planning

More Medicaid . . . and More by Phil Runyon

10/21/2013

More Medicaid . . . and More

There's new legislation on Medicaid - not Medicare - in New Hampshire that you should consider carefully.

Let's get at it by way of examples. Say you received a generous gift of $50,000 from mom less than 5 years before she needed Medicaid benefits for nursing care. As you know if you read my last Medicaid entry, there's a "look-back" period of 5 years before a gift like that would escape consideration by the Medicaid folks.

What the new law says is if you're the recipient of that gift, you can be held liable to the nursing home for mom's bill there, up to the full amount mom gave you. It's a complicated calculation to determine the actual reimbursement obligation, but the takeaway is that you're running an expensive risk if you spend those funds before the 5 year look-back period expires. Instead, what you probably should do during that time is deposit the windfall in a safe investment instrument, and then wait until the 5th anniversary of the gift to break out the champagne. If you've spent the funds prematurely, you may find a Medicaid lien on your own assets when you no longer have enough to pay mom's nursing home bill.

The other shoe that the new law drops may land on someone who holds a power of attorney for the nursing home resident. So let's say that you have mom's POA to pay her bills, but now she's run out of money and doesn't have enough to pay the nursing home. If you neglect to file for Medicaid after she takes up residence there, resulting in bills that might have been paid by Medicaid, you could be held personally liable for them in this instance, too. The lesson here is that on the same day you move mom into the nursing home, you'd better leave time to get to the Medicaid office to begin what I referred to last time as her "resource assessment". Remember, that's the process of reviewing her income and assets to find out whether she qualifies for Medicaid from day one - or has to do some "spending down" of her funds beforehand.

OK, that's the sobering essence of the new Medicaid law. But permit me, if you will, to make several general observations that are prompted by this state of affairs. Many of us serve as agents under the POAs of elderly or disabled parents, siblings, even friends - and when Medicaid isn't an issue at all. We think of ourselves as generously helping out the people we care about and it makes us feel good - am I right? But we certainly don't expect to be exposing our own assets to any of their obligations, at least as long as we don't run off with the funds - right again? The rub may come, though, when we're not paying as much attention as perhaps we should. Maybe mom has stock in a firm that's well known to be on the rocks, but we don't sell the investment before it finally tanks. Maybe we leave her funds languishing in an anemic checking account while the market is soaring, or in a mutual fund where the fees are eroding the non-performing principal. Or maybe we don't ensure that her taxes or insurance premiums are being paid, and penalties or losses accrue that might have been avoided. The list is as long as the ways we could mess up our own affairs.

The question is, who's responsible when our neglect - there's that word again - causes those losses? Look at it this way: If we fell asleep at the wheel while driving mom's car and we ran it into a tree, we'd certainly have to pay up for the injuries and damages. I'm suggesting the same thing could happen if we don't pay attention while in charge of her financial vehicles. Don't get me wrong, though. I'm not suggesting we abandon all our good-guy tendencies toward our loved ones; I'm just urging that if we've taken on responsibilities under their POAs, we'd better sit up and pay attention - and drive carefully. We wouldn't want to wreck our own car, and we certainly don't want to pay for wrecking someone else's.

Posted 10/21/2013

<<Previous

A Modest Proposal by Phil Runyon

A Modest Proposal

Protecting Your Most Precious Assets by Phil Runyon

Protecting Your Most Precious Assets

Sometimes More Information is Better by Phil Runyon

Sometimes More Information is Better

Be Charitable with IRAs by Phil Runyon

Be Charitable with IRAs

Asset Beneficiaries are Important by Phil Runyon

Asset Beneficiaries are important

Modern Families by Phil Runyon

Modern Families

More Trust News by Phil Runyon

More Trust News

Elder Law Priorities by Phil Runyon

Elder Law Priorities

Joint Tenants Take Note by Phil Runyon

Joint Tenants Take Note

More Medicaid . . . and More by Phil Runyon

More Medicaid . . . and More

Archives

Categories

A Modest Proposal

Sometimes More Information is Better

Be Charitable with IRAs

Asset Beneficiaries are important

Modern Families

More Trust News

Elder Law Priorities

Joint Tenants Take Note

More Medicaid . . . and More

Archives​​

Categories

Archives